Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Chairman Bill on February 24, 2010, 03:37:40 pm
-
One of my sons ended my involvement in MF many years ago, by dropping my kit & breaking beyond repair - Price has been the deterrent against getting back to MF ever since, but now I have the opportunity of some A1 condition Bronica kit at very reasonable cost. Before diving in & lightening my wallet, I'm wondering about the creation of digital files from 120 film. I have no wet darkroom, & no prospect of getting one, so digital files for Aperture are going to be necessary. So I need to factor in the cost of scanning. I've heard some good things about recent Epson flat-beds, but it's something I know nothing about.
Can anyone help with advice about making digi files from 120 film, choice of scanner etc? Funds aren't unlimited, but I see no point in MF over my DSLR (D700) if the scans don't do it justice.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
-
The big question is, what are you going to do with your medium format film camera? Landscape, portrait? I guess it's not for job but for passion. Now, a flatbed scanner can be good, but it really depends on wich are your needs. Actually, i don't think a bronica will be a dream... add the cost of film, develop and a good scanner... well, i'm a digital guy Are you going to print your photographs, or you want just see them in aperture?
-
hey Bill,
sounds like you're getting back into it! Great!!! Just so you know(you probably already do), M/F film cameras are pretty cheap price-wise now, with digital taking over most things these days! So for people who shoot/like film, its great!
regarding scanners, will you ONLY be scanning film? If the answer is yes, then you'll probably want to look at dedicated film scanners, say ones from Nikon or Minolta(not sure about service for these though if you ever need it). If you THINK you'll need to scan something OTHER than film only(say documents or prints), then a flatbed might be your best bet. Epson has some fine scanners, most notably the V700 and V750 models, both handle film nicely.
if you are only going to scan film, the coolscan 8000(disc)/9000ed(current model) are probably the BEST out of the lot, in fact, I think they're the only DEDICATED film scanners that can handle MF film these days that are still sold new, and are serviced(able to be serviced actually).
if budget is a concern, many people have found great results in the Epson offerings. I'd suggest doing some reading up on the V700/750 and the Coolscan 9000ed, comparing the capabilities and limitings of each.
lastly, will you be printing? If you're going to gallery sizes or want the VERY BEST out of your film, go with a dedicated film-only scanner. This way you can maximize getting the MOST information out of your film.
best of luck!
-Dan
-
Personally I love the Epson V700 which I use for scanning.
It's no drum scanner but it's still very good.
-
Hello Bill,
There is always the option of hiring an IMACON scanner at the Procentre (for those high quality MF Film scans) http://www.procentre.co.uk/ (http://www.procentre.co.uk/)
Wish ya all the best
-
I have threads in here about it.. but my epson v500 sucked and I hated it.
I ended up buying a nikon coolscan 9000 and I'm in love with it.
here's the "best" I could do with my epson v500 on a very dark slide. This took me a bunch of work to get like this
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/New%20Folder005.jpg)
this was me just willie-nillie tossing a slide in the nikon 9000
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine.jpg)
Then I adjusted a bunch of the settings
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine-dee%2025.jpg)
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine-dee%2050.jpg)
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine-dee%2075.jpg)
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine-dee%20100.jpg)
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine-dee%2054%20roc5gem3.jpg)
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine-roc5gem3.jpg)
(http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com/pics/june252009/scan_240icefine-dee%2054%20roc10gem4%20enh.jpg)
-
I like my Epson V750, works great and if I need something scanned for a large print I will send out to a lab.
-
One of my sons ended my involvement in MF many years ago, by dropping my kit & breaking beyond repair - Price has been the deterrent against getting back to MF ever since, but now I have the opportunity of some A1 condition Bronica kit at very reasonable cost. Before diving in & lightening my wallet, I'm wondering about the creation of digital files from 120 film. I have no wet darkroom, & no prospect of getting one, so digital files for Aperture are going to be necessary. So I need to factor in the cost of scanning. I've heard some good things about recent Epson flat-beds, but it's something I know nothing about.
Can anyone help with advice about making digi files from 120 film, choice of scanner etc? Funds aren't unlimited, but I see no point in MF over my DSLR (D700) if the scans don't do it justice.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Is there something i am missing here? Why in the world you go through the trouble of shooting film in a MF camera only to have to scan it later? I think the image quality from a Canon or Nikon DSLR would be superior with much less trouble. I made my living shooting film in MF cameras for over 10 years and scanned most of it myself so I've been there, done that - and it does not compare to what i get from my 1Ds or D3s. Even my b&w is better than I ever got from the wet darkroom.
Just my 2 cents.
-
One of my sons ended my involvement in MF many years ago, by dropping my kit & breaking beyond repair - Price has been the deterrent against getting back to MF ever since, but now I have the opportunity of some A1 condition Bronica kit at very reasonable cost. Before diving in & lightening my wallet, I'm wondering about the creation of digital files from 120 film. I have no wet darkroom, & no prospect of getting one, so digital files for Aperture are going to be necessary. So I need to factor in the cost of scanning. I've heard some good things about recent Epson flat-beds, but it's something I know nothing about.
Can anyone help with advice about making digi files from 120 film, choice of scanner etc? Funds aren't unlimited, but I see no point in MF over my DSLR (D700) if the scans don't do it justice.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
I have been using the Nikon 9000ED for about 18 months and I am very happy with it. The primary use here is for MF, very high resolution, slow speed B&W film like Rollei ATP 1.1, Agfa APX 25, and Panatomic-X. The Nikon 9000ED and Vuescan Pro are a great combination for this type of film. I am just starting to experiment with fluid mounting and the results look promising. See attached for an example of a scan from ATP 1.1 (downsized of course).
Shaun M
-
Good scanner with bad software is not a good scanner. They key is to get a very good software. VueScan Pro is probably the best, with lifetime upgrades included in price of just $80 total. I use it with Nikon LS-8000 to create DNG files and further develop them in ACR, where user presets (curves, etc) can be saved to be used for various films, etc.
You should, however, consider, that medium format film will require flattening for sharp focus during scanning. Newton rings can become nightmare, even with anti-newton ring carrier. You should consider that the scanner of your choice shoul allow the possibility of wet scanning.
-
Hi,
I have done a write up on some tests I have made with Pentax 67 and Sony A900. Scans for theses tests were done on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...-sony-alpha-900 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)
Regardless of the conclusions in the article the Pentax & Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro could produce stunning 70x100 cm prints (printed on Durst Lambda by a pro lab).
My testing was done with Velvia 50, your mileage may vary. Some negative BW films like T-MAX 100 are much sharper than Velvia, for instance.
Best regards
Erik
One of my sons ended my involvement in MF many years ago, by dropping my kit & breaking beyond repair - Price has been the deterrent against getting back to MF ever since, but now I have the opportunity of some A1 condition Bronica kit at very reasonable cost. Before diving in & lightening my wallet, I'm wondering about the creation of digital files from 120 film. I have no wet darkroom, & no prospect of getting one, so digital files for Aperture are going to be necessary. So I need to factor in the cost of scanning. I've heard some good things about recent Epson flat-beds, but it's something I know nothing about.
Can anyone help with advice about making digi files from 120 film, choice of scanner etc? Funds aren't unlimited, but I see no point in MF over my DSLR (D700) if the scans don't do it justice.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
-
High to low:
10k+
Hasslebad/Imacon are the best of the easy to use (non-wet mount drum) scanners out there - but they are expensive.
or
Drum scanner
1k-10k
A second hand drum scanner - but you need space and knowledge (and a bargain)
or
A second hand Imacon (848/646 etc)
or
A second hand high end flatbed like a Saphir or one of the big Fuji's
or
The Nikon 9000 is awesome for the price ($1500 ish). You have to spend alot of money to get better than that. <-- my reco
<1k
The Epson V750 is the best of the sub 1k flatbeds out there, and offers the option of wet mounting.
<300
The Epson 4990
If you get any of the epsons - look at getting ANR inserts and holders from betterscanning.com (and Vuescan)
-
High to low:
10k+
Hasslebad/Imacon are the best of the easy to use (non-wet mount drum) scanners out there - but they are expensive.
or
Drum scanner
1k-10k
A second hand drum scanner - but you need space and knowledge (and a bargain)
or
A second hand Imacon (848/646 etc)
or
A second hand high end flatbed like a Saphir or one of the big Fuji's
or
The Nikon 9000 is awesome for the price ($1500 ish). You have to spend alot of money to get better than that. <-- my reco
<1k
The Epson V750 is the best of the sub 1k flatbeds out there, and offers the option of wet mounting.
<300
The Epson 4990
If you get any of the epsons - look at getting ANR inserts and holders from betterscanning.com (and Vuescan)
Hi Liam,
According to you, the Nikon 9000 would be a better choice than the Epson V750? If so, what are the advantages of the Nikon?
I'm asking this question because about to buy the Epson V750 Pro.
Also, in the Epson V750 they say: DIGITAL ICE TECHNOLOGY is NOT compatible with traditional B&W films and Kodachrome.
I'm not sure I understand this point clearly.
Fred.
-
Hi Liam,
According to you, the Nikon 9000 would be a better choice than the Epson V750? If so, what are the advantages of the Nikon?
I'm asking this question because about to buy the Epson V750 Pro.
Also, in the Epson V750 they say: DIGITAL ICE TECHNOLOGY is NOT compatible with traditional B&W films and Kodachrome.
I'm not sure I understand this point clearly.
Fred.
From an entry on photonet:
ICE uses an infra red scan to detect solid objects on the film like dust and scratches - as black and white film contains silver halide particles the infra red picks these up and doesn't work properly. E6 and C41 film only has dye left after the processing stage and ICE can seperate out the solids from the dye image by comparing the infrared with the RGB visible scan. Kodachrome is essentially a built of layers of those same halides, so it has the same structure (from the infra-red standpoint) as traditional BW film.
I do think the Nikon 9000 is a better scanner than the V750 - the lack of flatbed glass, better sensor tracking, and other improvements have show it to be consistently sharper and able to pull detail out of shadows (slide) and highlights (negative) where the flatbeds just cannot penetrate.
However, IF you need to do 4x5 and 8x10 in addition to 120 - the V750 is a GREAT solution to do both, without stepping up to an Imacon. My opinion anyway, based on my own comparison scans. Whether is is twice the price better... is a judgement call I cannot make for you.
For my own needs, If I didn't shoot large format, the Nikon 9000 would be my go to "budget" scanner for my own work.
-
I have the Nikon 9000 for 35mm and MF, and the V750 for 4x5 and reflective media. The 9000 is fantastic. Its much better than my previous Microtek 120tf. For MF and smaller film the 9000 is heads and shoulders above the v750. The v750 does a good job on 4x5.
I think the IQ differences between the 9000 and the Imacons is marginal. The real difference comes down to film flatness and the speed at which you can get a really good, flat scan. I am way faster on an Imacon 646 than on my Nikon. The Nikon requires masks on c41 and E6 film if using it with the glass carriers. I think B&W is too matt and thick on the emulsion side to produce Newtons rings, but its hit or miss with C41 and E6, thus you need masks.
Software is important. I like Nikon Scan, but use Vuescan when Nikon Scan can't get it right. I also use Vuescan on the v750, which works well.
Good luck with this.
-
Hi,
Conventional wisdom says that a special purpose slide scanner is better than a flatbed. I have not seen any evidence confirming that but it sort of makes sense.
My guess would be that the Nikon resolves higher and may have better DR (Dynamic Range).
On the other hand, I'm a bit skeptical about going the MF film route anyway. I have seen little or no advantage with MF and Velvia in my limited testing. To put it bluntly, it is my guess that a majority of photographers would be more satisfied with the results of using a "Full Frame" DSLR than scanning MF film. My experience is with slide film and mostly Velvia which is hard to scan, but your mileage may vary.
For my testing I spent four rolls of 120-film and spent about 100$ on film and development. On digital I essentially made a single exposure. Convenience and learning curve are definitively an advantage of digital.
That said, excellent results can be achieved with scanned MF film. I have been there and done that.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
Hi Liam,
According to you, the Nikon 9000 would be a better choice than the Epson V750? If so, what are the advantages of the Nikon?
I'm asking this question because about to buy the Epson V750 Pro.
Also, in the Epson V750 they say: DIGITAL ICE TECHNOLOGY is NOT compatible with traditional B&W films and Kodachrome.
I'm not sure I understand this point clearly.
Fred.
-
Thanks for the comments - useful stuff I'm sure, but now I'm wondering whether I will actually get better results from scanned 120 than from my D700 or not!
-
Hi!
My guess is:
1) Much more work
2) Slightly more detail
3) More noise and less DR
4) Tonality may be different, you like it or you don't
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the comments - useful stuff I'm sure, but now I'm wondering whether I will actually get better results from scanned 120 than from my D700 or not!
-
Most digital looks like E6. Too sharp, too contrasy. The only digital that gets a film look without hours of post is the Leaf Aptus series of backs. And for b&w, film rules.
That being said, scanning is a huge time suck.
Thanks for the comments - useful stuff I'm sure, but now I'm wondering whether I will actually get better results from scanned 120 than from my D700 or not!
-
That being said, scanning is a huge time suck.
Call Nancy Scans, cut a deal with John, let them do the color and duting and wa-la, Ready to go.
In other words, let the pros handle it.
IMO
BC
-
I have a relationship with Duggal, not a great one, but for editorial or client work, they give me and the mags a great deal on film scanning or printing 11x14's that the magazines drum scan.
Home scanning is for when I'm shooting film for myself, which I'm finding harder and harder to justify. I'm about to go back to the Canons, maybe still shoot 35mm film in the Leicas.
One more reason to shoot Canon over the non AA filtered cams: saw a printed piece of mine shot with the M8. Moire in the model's pants. Never saw it in the file at 100%. I wonder if they did anything to it in prepress that changed the screening.
Call Nancy Scans, cut a deal with John, let them do the color and duting and wa-la, Ready to go.
In other words, let the pros handle it.
IMO
BC
-
It seems that I'll also have to reconsider my idea of the Epson V750 pro.
As Liam explained why it is not suitable for traditional b&w.
This is a real mess.
So I would like to ask the LF users 3 questions.
- What is THE flatbed scanner for 5x4 8x10 if 90% of the work is going to be B&W ?
- What kind of enlargement can we expect without going to Drumscan (the limits of this flatbed scanner for printing size)?
- It seems that it is far from seeing a consensus in appropriate sofware, in that jungle, is there a sofware(s) that everybody would agree is a must?
Thank you.
Fred.
-
One more reason to shoot Canon over the non AA filtered cams: saw a printed piece of mine shot with the M8. Moire in the model's pants. Never saw it in the file at 100%. I wonder if they did anything to it in prepress that changed the screening.
[/quote]
The Moire had nothing to do with the sensor...
The screening process for printing clashed with the pattern in the image and what many forget is that the moire has always been a problem somewhere along the way to print.
Even the best drum scanners had to deal with this problem.
-
It seems that I'll also have to reconsider my idea of the Epson V750 pro.
As Liam explained why it is not suitable for traditional b&w.
This is a real mess.
So I would like to ask the LF users 3 questions.
- What is THE flatbed scanner for 5x4 8x10 if 90% of the work is going to be B&W ?
- What kind of enlargement can we expect without going to Drumscan (the limits of this flatbed scanner for printing size)?
- It seems that it is far from seeing a consensus in appropriate sofware, in that jungle, is there a sofware(s) that everybody would agree is a must?
Note - NO SCANNER can use digital ICE for BW film - not the Nikon 9000 either. You don't have to use the ICE option, just turn it off, and it scans BW film just fine. ICE is just handy for automated dust removal, and IMO has no bearing on the scan overall.
The V750 is a good solution for LF work at home. The Imacon's can only do up to 4x5. If you are going to shoot 8x10 your options are V750, Saphir (or similar), Drum scanner.
-
Note - NO SCANNER can use digital ICE for BW film - not the Nikon 9000 either. You don't have to use the ICE option, just turn it off, and it scans BW film just fine. ICE is just handy for automated dust removal, and IMO has no bearing on the scan overall.
The V750 is a good solution for LF work at home. The Imacon's can only do up to 4x5. If you are going to shoot 8x10 your options are V750, Saphir (or similar), Drum scanner.
Thank you very much Liam for this aclaration.
Fred.
-
hello everybody,
just to share my experiences in 30 years of photography
For BW, there is NO substitute for Film and Fiberbase prints handmade in a decent darkroom, point final !
For color I replaced with great pleasure all Film by digital.
DSLR when I need high ISO ad much frames per second (D3s)
MFDB for the large detailed fine art prints (first P20, now Aptus II 7 )
And yes Leaf has that FILM look in digital files, and that 3D appearance that others do NOT have !
However, I still occasionally shoot slides (Fuji RDP III) and I still am amazed when I see them on a lighttable,
but then, o my, when you have to scan them ...
loosing a lot of time, and loosing a lot of quality
So for this reason only, NEVER compare MF Film that is scanned, with digital or even traditional prints in a wet-room!
cheers !
-
I almost agree but then I've seen so many really wonderful, large, images in museaums and galleries that were shot on film, scanned and printed very large on big HP printers. The Annie Leibowitz show at the Brooklyn Museum was all film, mainly the RZ, drum scanned and printed by Lamount in NYC. Alec Soth's Niagra, scanned 8x10 printed on a light jet.
Real fiber prints from chemicals do beat just about everything.
hello everybody,
just to share my experiences in 30 years of photography
For BW, there is NO substitute for Film and Fiberbase prints handmade in a decent darkroom, point final !
For color I replaced with great pleasure all Film by digital.
DSLR when I need high ISO ad much frames per second (D3s)
MFDB for the large detailed fine art prints (first P20, now Aptus II 7 )
And yes Leaf has that FILM look in digital files, and that 3D appearance that others do NOT have !
However, I still occasionally shoot slides (Fuji RDP III) and I still am amazed when I see them on a lighttable,
but then, o my, when you have to scan them ...
loosing a lot of time, and loosing a lot of quality
So for this reason only, NEVER compare MF Film that is scanned, with digital or even traditional prints in a wet-room!
cheers !
-
Very hard for me to gauge the level of commitment from the original person that posted. Having said that, I have owned and used both the Epson V750 and the Imacon.
The V750 might be fine for 8x10, but for medium format, it's a dog. Does not hold a candle to an Imacon. The Imacons are now tough to work with unless you find a 343 with firewire; otherwise you have to jiggie around with that SCSI adaptor.
Judging by the tone of the original person, I'd suggest he avoid film altogether and buy a simple digital camera. But he does not make it clear, as to his priority list of what he's looking for. But it sounds like he's not looking to get married to this project, heavy duty.
In these days, shooting film involves a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of jumping thru hoops. But if that's the way you see the world, then the battle is worth it.
But my advice, avoid any and all flatbeds, unless you're shooting 8x10.
As far as sending film out for someone else to scan it, I cannot imagine doing that. To me, a vital part of the process is sitting there with the software, determining how the file is going to feel, when you're about to scan it. I cannot imagine leaving that decision to someone else. In the end, it's my picture. I'm sure these shops are fine for grind-it-out work, but there's something about ownership of your own image, to me. Same with making prints -- I can't imagine letting someone else make a print for me.
-
hello everybody,
just to share my experiences in 30 years of photography
For BW, there is NO substitute for Film and Fiberbase prints handmade in a decent darkroom, point final !
Yes, but the problem is that there are less and less pro darkrooms for big enlargements.
When I was younger in France, every average city had at least several what we called "photo clubs" with a decent structure where you could go and
work in the darkroom and be able to enlarge quite big. All you had to do was buying your papers and products.
An all generation of pro photographers and amateurs (in a noble way) came out from these clubs.
But now, it is pro lab, very expensive and there is not one photo club with traditional darkroom that I know.
Also, in europeans cities where the m2 is counted and 80% are living in flats, the problem of the darkroom space is really difficult to deal with.
So scanning is an obligation.
If I could find a decent darkroom with decent prices I would not hesitate.
-
If its important I wait around, look at the scan preview, tell them to make the adjustments. Same with prints. The work prints come out and I don't leave until its done how I want it. They are very good about this. BUT, and here is the BUT, its EXPENSIVE, if you are paying for it.
For B&W I use Lamont. They process the film using whatever chemestry I specify, drum scan, and print it on big HP or Epsons using customs RIPs. I can be right there the entire time, directing everything. But in truth, once they understand what you want, they can get it.
I agree about the v750. Its good for 4x5 also, better than anything in its price range, but MF and 35mm is a harsh, cruel joke.
Very hard for me to gauge the level of commitment from the original person that posted. Having said that, I have owned and used both the Epson V750 and the Imacon.
The V750 might be fine for 8x10, but for medium format, it's a dog. Does not hold a candle to an Imacon. The Imacons are now tough to work with unless you find a 343 with firewire; otherwise you have to jiggie around with that SCSI adaptor.
Judging by the tone of the original person, I'd suggest he avoid film altogether and buy a simple digital camera. But he does not make it clear, as to his priority list of what he's looking for. But it sounds like he's not looking to get married to this project, heavy duty.
In these days, shooting film involves a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of jumping thru hoops. But if that's the way you see the world, then the battle is worth it.
But my advice, avoid any and all flatbeds, unless you're shooting 8x10.
As far as sending film out for someone else to scan it, I cannot imagine doing that. To me, a vital part of the process is sitting there with the software, determining how the file is going to feel, when you're about to scan it. I cannot imagine leaving that decision to someone else. In the end, it's my picture. I'm sure these shops are fine for grind-it-out work, but there's something about ownership of your own image, to me. Same with making prints -- I can't imagine letting someone else make a print for me.
-
Yes, but the problem is that there are less and less pro darkrooms for big enlargements.
When I was younger in France, every average city had at least several what we called "photo clubs" with a decent structure where you could go and
work in the darkroom and be able to enlarge quite big. All you had to do was buying your papers and products.
An all generation of pro photographers and amateurs (in a noble way) came out from these clubs.
But now, it is pro lab, very expensive and there is not one photo club with traditional darkroom that I know.
Also, in europeans cities where the m2 is counted and 80% are living in flats, the problem of the darkroom space is really difficult to deal with.
So scanning is an obligation.
If I could find a decent darkroom with decent prices I would not hesitate.
see if that "pro lab" will rent out darkroom space to you. I believe some labs here in LA do that if you get to know them enough, and the enlarger/trays aren't being used all that much.
I wish I could afford a drum scanner, yes, I said drum scanner. I have had some OK results from flatbed scanners, but to me, if you're going to go to the trouble of shooting LF(4X5 or 8X10), why scan the film with a POS scanner? Yes, for 95% of people price is a factor, but if you need to go the flatbed route, the Kodak IqSmart series of scanners are great. They're REALLY big, especially compared to the V750, but the results are worth it, and they have the option of being wet mounted. But for the price of one of these, even on the used market, you might as well purchase a used drum scanner or Imacon.
drum scanning is an art, well, scanning is an art in itself. Thankfully, film kind of forces you to get color balance right, especially with chromes, but even with negs, shooting in shade won't hurt all that bad in post production, especially if you shoot a gray card on the 1st frame of the roll, so you can do a rough color/density adjustment.
-Dan
-
Very hard for me to gauge the level of commitment from the original person that posted ... Judging by the tone of the original person, I'd suggest he avoid film altogether and buy a simple digital camera. But he does not make it clear, as to his priority list of what he's looking for. But it sounds like he's not looking to get married to this project, heavy duty ...
Not sure what you mean by level of commitment. I still occasionally shoot film on my Nikon FM, but more usually digital on a D700. B&W is digi only because I really do not have any room for, or other access to a darkroom. I used to, but not anymore. My commitment to MF is simply a matter of being able to afford to replace the kit that got smashed, remembering the quality (and reviewing old slides & negs helps there!), and wondering about how it would compare against the sort of quality I get from FF digital once scanned. I can't afford or justify a MF digital back, hence my question about scanning.
I get the sense that LF is well worth scanning (no surprise there really), but scanned MF might not give me any better results than I get currently from my DLSR. I still hanker after some big Tri-X negs though
-
The best scans I ever had were drum scans produced by a master, the worst were drum scans produced by a monkey.
i'm satisfied with results i achieve whenever i monkey around with the scanning process ...
-
Yes, but the problem is that there are less and less pro darkrooms for big enlargements.
When I was younger in France, every average city had at least several what we called "photo clubs" with a decent structure where you could go and
work in the darkroom and be able to enlarge quite big. All you had to do was buying your papers and products.
An all generation of pro photographers and amateurs (in a noble way) came out from these clubs.
But now, it is pro lab, very expensive and there is not one photo club with traditional darkroom that I know.
Also, in europeans cities where the m2 is counted and 80% are living in flats, the problem of the darkroom space is really difficult to deal with.
So scanning is an obligation.
If I could find a decent darkroom with decent prices I would not hesitate.
You give me an Idea ...
Maybe I start renting my darkroom ...
-
I have 45+ rolls of 645 that I want to just scan base-line into NEFs. Good enough for printing 36x48 without going back to scan. How do people deal with newton rings? I'm thinking about making some shims for the glass insert. anyone?
-
revaron you can tape them emulsion down on the glass facing the sensor and put 2-3 drops with an eye dropper of petroleum ether or liquid lighter fuel both of which evaporate away and do not harm the slide or neg.
The slide may need to be taped on on four edges using magic tape like scotch or 3m etc. There are a few other variants of this method but above is the simplest for home use.
good scanning.
-
At the risk of opening a can of worms, I have both the Imacon 343 and the Epson V700. Comparisons have been made, but only casually:
1) The scans off the Imacon are superior, to be sure. When used on some micro-fiche, with artwork and detailed linework (tech'l drawings shot on 35 mm film), the Imacon makes a file that is just lovely to look at (Flexcolor). Details to one's hearts content, and no doubt at all about quality.
2) The V700 (using only plastic holders and 120 BW film) gave a decent and workable result, even with standard software.
I was looking for the 343 to blow the 700 out of the water - and was pleasantly surprised by the V700. THey aren't quite in the same category, and for fine work, the 343 would get the nod all the time. That said, the 700 was workable up to a reasonable size (11" sq?) without shame at all.
IMHO, for 35 mm, the 700 for me isn't terribly effective - OK to record the image, but from slides its really only usable for projection, not fine printing. And the 343 requires taking the film out of the mount - not much fun either.
Hope this helps. Sorry the comparison isn' t more precise.
Geoff
-
Why are we film users not allowed to enjoy the special qualities - grain, colour, tactility - of our chosen medium without swarms of digital heads rising up from the swamp with their incessant, spittle-flecked insistence that we are bad, unconscionable and wrong? I don't recall the OP asking for advice on whether film is a viable or sensible option in this day and age. He clearly has a long-standing and sentimental attachment to the film medium that means a lot more than irrelevant arguments over which medium produces the most precise pixels, or whatever.
Don't you people have batteries you need to go away and charge or something?
For what it's worth, the Epson V700/750 is perfectly adequate for making decent scans from all types of film, as long as you are prepared to put in the work on each scan - it's a steep learning curve, but you will enjoy it. It's great value, too. The guy with the V500 is wasting your and my bandwidth - the scanners have very different technologies and capabilities.
Now that's useful advice. IMHO.
-
While the Epson V700/V750 are good scanners, they are no match for a dedicated film scanner. The Imacons are the top choice, but will most likely be out of price range, unless your funds are limitless.
Other than the Imacon, my suggestion would be the Nikon LS 9000 ED film scanner. I own one, and am very happy with it. One word of caution if/when you buy it - You MUST, and I cannot over-emphasize this - you MUST buy the optional glass carrier for your 120 film. B&H has them for around $250 US. Model # FH-869G. The standard 120 glassless carrier that comes with the scanner is horrible - your film will bow in the middle, yielding a less than acceptable scan. BUY the glass carrier - problem solved.
The scanner scans @ 4000 ppi, and yields resolution about 9000x11000 pixels for a 6x7 neg, with a file size around 500-550 mb's @ 16 bit. (Just about enough to produce a 24x30" print @ 360 ppi, native resolution.)
Michael H. Cothran
Nashville, Tennessee
-
While the Epson V700/V750 are good scanners, they are no match for a dedicated film scanner. The Imacons are the top choice, but will most likely be out of price range, unless your funds are limitless.
Other than the Imacon, my suggestion would be the Nikon LS 9000 ED film scanner. I own one, and am very happy with it. One word of caution if/when you buy it - You MUST, and I cannot over-emphasize this - you MUST buy the optional glass carrier for your 120 film. B&H has them for around $250 US. Model # FH-869G. The standard 120 glassless carrier that comes with the scanner is horrible - your film will bow in the middle, yielding a less than acceptable scan. BUY the glass carrier - problem solved.
The scanner scans @ 4000 ppi, and yields resolution about 9000x11000 pixels for a 6x7 neg, with a file size around 500-550 mb's @ 16 bit. (Just about enough to produce a 24x30" print @ 360 ppi, native resolution.)
Michael H. Cothran
Nashville, Tennessee
I've had better luck with the stock 120 holders than most. I can get a very nice scan from the regular holder. I also have the regular glass holder and some Anti Newton glass and optical glass that I use with teh regular holder. I use all three holders, depending on the condition of the film.
Now that I don't live in NYC full time, I'm using my 9000 more and more. It really does a good job.
-
I get the sense that LF is well worth scanning (no surprise there really), but scanned MF might not give me any better results than I get currently from my DLSR. I still hanker after some big Tri-X negs though
I still say scanned MF(6x7) is better quality than a dslr....at least in my experience....more dynamic range and more room to push the file around in photoshop...those dslr files deteriorate a lot faster than my negs. not to mention the difference in look due to format size.
i have a 9000 i scan with but, if i had the cash i'd get a creo iqsmart in a heartbeat......not so much a huge difference in sharpness but in the color depth and the smoothness of the tonal gradations....it's like night and day between the nikon and the creo.